2009 Pa. Super. 160 - Commonwealth v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Our standard of review of a trial court’s determination not to recuse from hearing a case is exceptionally deferential. We recognize that our trial judges are “honorable, fair and competent,” and although we employ an abuse of discretion standard, we do so recognizing that the judge himself is best qualified to gauge his ability to preside impartially. The party who asserts that a trial judge should recuse bears the burden of setting forth specific evidence of bias, prejudice, or unfairness. “Furthermore, a decision by the trial court against whom the plea of prejudice is made will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In the Int. of: L v. Appeal of: J.H. · Commonwealth v. McCauley

2. “A party seeking recusal bears the burden of producing evidence to establish bias, prejudice, or unfairness[,] which raises a substantial doubt as to the jurist's ability to preside impartially.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In the Int. of: L v. Appeal of: J.H. · Commonwealth v. McCauley

3. “The propriety of this decision [regarding recusal] is preserved as any other assignment of error, should the objecting party find it necessary to appeal following the conclusion of the cause. If the cause is appealed, the record is before the appellate court which can determine whether a fair and impartial trial were had. If so the alleged disqualifying factors of the trial judge become moot.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2017 Pa. Super. 47 - Commonwealth v. Reese